TBN’s Rogues’ Gallery

I don’t watch a lot of television, but when I channel surf, I usually scoot right past channel 50, Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). The cable channel is a cesspool of heterodoxy with its stable of prosperity gospel and Rome-friendly televangelists. The other day, I got the idea in my head to list all of the TBN “entertainers,” so using my limited Microsoft Excel spreadsheet skills, I copied and sorted all of the shows scheduled on the cable channel during a week’s time span and came up with the list below. Based upon my own knowledge and/or with a little Google research, I categorized each televangelist as to whether they were propagators of the prosperity gospel and/or supporters of ecumenism with Rome. A “Y” means Yes, an “N” means No, and a “?” means I could not determine the status. Generally, prosperity gospelers are too busy picking out their next Mercedes or airplane to care about doctrinal differences with Rome. There are also several on the list who, while not flagrant prosperity gospelers themselves, make a habit out of hanging out in prosperity gospel circles.

A quick glance reveals this list of TBN’s 60 televangelists is heavy with prosperity, word-of-faith shysters and Rome-friendly ecumenists. BTW, Father Cedric on the list is, in fact, Roman Catholic priest, Cedric Pisegna. There are only a few on this list who I could recommend, like Charles Stanley and Ray Comfort. Several I have never heard of.

This listing is obviously not set in stone so any challenges or help with the “?”s will be appreciated. Forgive the wide columns, but incorporating an Excel spreadsheet into a WordPress post is a little messy.

	Prosperity	Ecumenical
Mark Batterson	?	?
Irvin Baxter	?	?
Reinhard Bonnke	Y	Y
John Bradshaw	?	Y
Jonathan Cahn	Y	?
Christine Caine	Y	Y
Ron Carpenter	Y	?
Alicia Britt Chole	?	Y
Ray Comfort	N	N
Kenneth Copeland	Y	Y
Gregory Dickow	Y	Y
Creflo Dollar	Y	?
Jesse Duplantis	Y	Y
Tony Evans	N	Y
Karl Faase	?	Y
Jentezen Franklin	Y	Y
Steven Furtick	Y	?
Louie Giglio	?	Y
Billy Graham	N	Y
Jack Graham	?	Y
John Gray	Y	Y
John Hagee	Y	?
Allen Jackson	?	?
T. D. Jakes	Y	Y
Robert Jeffress	N	Y
David Jeremiah	N	Y
Mark Jeske	?	?
Daniel Kolenda	Y	?
Greg Laurie	?	Y
Hal Lindsey	?	?
Max Lucado	N	Y
James MacDonald	?	?
Guillermo Maldonado	Y	?
James Merritt	?	?
Joyce Meyer	Y	Y
Beth Moore	?	Y
Robert Morris	Y	?
Joel Osteen	Y	Y
Father Cedric	N	Y
Fred K. Price	Y	?
Joseph Prince	Y	?
David Rives	?	?
Pat Robertson	Y	Y
James Robison	Y	Y
Samuel Rodriguez	Y	Y
Sid Roth	Y	?
Rabbi Kirt Schneider	Y	?
Bobby Schuller	?	?
Jay Sekulow	Y	?
Priscilla Shirer	?	Y
Kerry Shook	N	N
Erick Stakelbeck	?	?
Charles Stanley	N	N
Perry Stone	Y	?
Tommy Tenney	?	?
Holly Wagner	?	Y
Don Wilton	N	?
Andrew Wommack	Y	Y
Ed Young	Y	Y
Michael Youssef	N	?

Is repentance a work?

Repent.

 

It’s become a ridiculed word in society and, surprisingly, even among some Christians.

When I encourage readers to accept Jesus Christ in my posts, I’ll often write something like, “Repent of your sin and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior by faith alone.”

Some may ask, what exactly is meant by “repent”?

The Greek words for repent (verb) and repentance (noun) are metanoéō and metanoia and they appear a total of 55 times in the New Testament. The “Strongest NIV Exhaustive Concordance” defines metanoia as:

“Change of mind, repentance, the state of changing any or all of the elements composing one’s life: attitude, thoughts, and behaviors concerning the demands of God for right living: note that this state can refer to the foundational salvation event in Christ, or to on-going repentance in the Christian life” (my italics and boldface).

When a person is saved, they change their mind (repent) about their rebellion against God, agreeing with God that they are an absolute helpless sinner in need of the Savior, and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. Repentance is part of the conversion to Christ. A person can’t accept Christ as Savior until they have understood through the ministry of the Holy Spirit their desperate need of the Savior and repented (changed their mind) about their rebellion against God. Every person who has accepted (some prefer to say “trusted in”) Christ as Savior has repented of their sinful rebellion. Many preachers of the Gospel even use “repentance” as shorthand for conversion to Christ.

Repentance, turning from sinful rebellion against God to trusting in Christ as Savior by faith alone, is Scriptural and is well understood as basic, elementary theology by most Christians.

Apostle Peter declared to unbelievers, “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.” Acts 3:19

Apostle Paul later declared to unbelievers, “How I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. – Acts 20:20-21

Once a person is saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone, they will follow Christ imperfectly and must repent of (turn from) subsequent sins of disobedience, however that is not a matter of salvation, but of sanctification.

Pretty basic stuff, huh? Shouldn’t even be an issue, right? So why am I making a fuss about all of this?

A fellow WordPress blogger has repeatedly accused me of adding works to the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone by mentioning repentance as part of conversion. He claims that repentance is a work and cannot be added to simply accepting Christ as Savior.

I’ve been wrongly accused of a lot of things, but I don’t like being accused of distorting the Gospel. I’ve explained several times to this individual that repentance is turning from rebellion against God to agreeing with God about the need for Christ, so it is a vital component of accepting Christ. You can’t accept Christ until you have understood (changed your mind regarding) your need for Christ. But this blogger is having none of it and believes he is defending the pure Gospel against an imaginary work. While I applaud this person’s defense of the Gospel of grace, his misunderstanding of repentance causes him to tilt at windmills. It’s very clear that he understands “repentance” only in some type of Catholic penitential, self-reformational sense.

However, this blogger is not alone in this viewpoint as I have seen some others rankled over the same issue. So why do I continue to include admonitions to repent in my invitations to receive Christ if some are troubled by it? As I explained, repentance is a very necessary part of accepting Christ. At many churches, there are often ambiguous invitations to “follow Jesus” or “receive Jesus into your heart.” Church visitors often “respond” to invitations without truly understanding their depraved, sinful state and their need of Christ as Savior. They make a “decision” and then go home and live their lives like they always have. Their was no genuine conversion. Sinners MUST repent (change their minds) about their sinful rebellion against God and turn to Christ. You cannot genuinely trust in Christ UNLESS you have repented! Repentance is absolutely mandatory in Biblical salvation! Attempting to concoct some type of salvation in Christ without repentance would be like an imaginary scenario in which someone just showed up at a doctor’s office out of the blue with no symptoms. “I’m here, Doc, but I don’t know why I’m here!” Does not compute. Only people who admit they are sick seek a doctor’s help. That’s repentance.

I’ll admit I’m a little frustrated at having to repeatedly defend myself against accusations of adding works to the Gospel, but I hold no ill will against this blogger who has a limited understanding of theology and is sincerely attempting to defend the Gospel of grace. I have suggested to the person that he do a word study of repent/metanoéō and repentance/metanoia in the New Testament, but that would precipitate an uncomfortable paradigm shift.

“Repentance means that you realize that you’re a guilty, vile sinner in the presence of God. That you deserve the wrath and punishment of God, that you are hell bound. It means that you begin to realize that this thing called sin is in you, that you long to get rid of it and that you turn your back on it in every shape and form. You renounce the world, whatever the cost. The world in its mind and outlook as well as its practice and you deny yourself and take up the cross and go after Christ. Your nearest and dearest and the whole world may call you a fool, or say you have religious mania, you may have to suffer financially, it makes no difference, that is repentance. It’s always been understood the same way. It is a complete change, life-changing and it begins at salvation and that just starts a permanent lifelong process of ongoing confession of sin.” – Martyn Lloyd-Jones from “Studies in the Sermon on the Mount”

Catholicism’s “three-legged stool” – Broken for all the world to see!

For 500 years, Roman Catholics have boasted that their church alone was blessed with divine authority. Not only did Catholics have Holy Scripture to guide them, they also had “sacred” tradition AND the allegedly infallible teaching magisterium of the pope and his bishops.

Catholics often suggested that their church was like a sturdy, three-legged stool, supported by Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, and able to withstand every wind of doctrinal confusion and heresy. As a young child in parochial grammar school, the priests and nuns often used the three-legged stool as a symbol for Catholicism’s unshakeable authority. It was claimed the Holy Spirit would never allow a pope to lead the church into error.

I’ve posted MANY times over the last twenty months regarding the mounting controversy in the Catholic church over pope Francis’ lifting of the ban on communion for remarried divorcees in his “Amoris Laetitia” (Joy of Love) post-synodal apostolic exhortation released in April 2016. The pope and his allies have been engaged in a chess match with church conservatives over this abrogation of doctrine, previously held to be infallible, ever since. This week, it was revealed the pope, in essence, shouted “Check!” (or even “Checkmate!”) to his conservative chessmates by invoking “authentic magisterium” for his doctrinal change. Conservatives aren’t convinced. What will be their next move?

This morning, I was listening to the 12/5/17 podcast of the “Calling All Catholics” talk radio show, and conservative Jesuit priest, Robert McTeigue, spoke dismissively about the pope’s invocation of “authentic magisterium” to support his repeal of infallible doctrine:

“Is it magisterial by nature or magisterial by name only?,” McTeigue half-heartedly conjectured, already quite convinced of the answer. In closing, he remarked, “I just think we need to read the best scholars and look for direction from the bishops and the cardinals to do the right thing.” Unspoken in the priest’s advice, but well understood by the listener, is that only conservative scholars, bishops, and cardinals should be heeded on this issue, not the pope or his allies.

So what we have here is a church being led by a heretical pope. At this point, conservative bishops and priests are still reluctant to call Francis a heretic outright, but they are basically advising Catholics to disobey him. What does that say for Catholicism’s unassailable three-legged stool when one of the legs is broken? If an entire religious system is built upon lies, like the infallibility of popes, what is a Catholic to do?

Catholic friend, turn from your institutional church, repent of your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior by faith alone! Then ask the Lord to lead you to an evangelical church in your area that preaches God’s Word without compromise. It’s ALL about the Lord, Jesus Christ, not about a proven-to-be-fallible religious institution. The Lord is using this “Amoris Laetitia” controversy to expose Rome’s fallacious claims for all the world to see.

Critical moment for Catholicism as pope Francis moves from “confusion” to heresy by invoking “authentic magisterium”

The Catholic church was thrown into turmoil in April 2016 when pope Francis released his “Amoris Laetitia” (Joy of Love) post-synodal apostolic exhortation, which seemed to allow communion for remarried divorcees, an apparent abrogation of doctrine previously held to be infallible. It was obvious that pragmatic Francis was intending to “bend the rules” in order to make the church more welcoming for divorcees, but conservatives and traditionalists were aghast at this change in “unchangeable” doctrine. Conservative cardinals sent their “dubia” (formal questions) to the pope, requesting that he “clarify” (i.e., reverse)  the exhortation, but no reply was forthcoming. An increasing number of conservatives joined the chorus charging Francis with “bringing confusion into the church,” but stopped short of directly accusing him of heresy.

Yesterday, conservative Catholic web sites were abuzz (see stories below) as pope Francis has done the unimaginable and has thrown the weight of “authentic magisterium” behind his lifting of the ban on communion for remarried divorcees. It’s no longer a matter of the pope causing “confusion” and uncertainty, the pope has now clarified his position and made it official dogma by invoking “authentic magisterium.”

Francis has thrown down the gauntlet. How will conservative and traditionalist Catholics respond? Will they now have the courage, honesty, and integrity to pronounce the pope a heretic? But how can they remain faithful to a heretical pope? Catholics have always boasted that the Holy Spirit would guide their pope from leading the church into doctrinal error. How do they explain this? Since the dogma of papal infallibility has been shown to be spurious, what does that say about all the other man-made Catholic traditions that have no basis in Scripture?

• Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers
• Here’s how Pope Francis elevated communion for adulterers to ‘authentic magisterium’
• Critical Moment
• What happens if Catholics think the Pope is a heretic?

Catholic friend, you need to put emotions aside and objectively examine the crumbling foundations of your institutional church. Forsake the legalistic chains of Roman Catholicism and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior by faith alone. Accept Christ and ask the Lord to lead you to an evangelical church in your area that preaches the Word of God without compromise.

Catholics voting on whether the “Vicar of Christ” is a heretic

A few days ago, I posted that sixty-two conservative Catholic clerics and theologians had recently sent a formal petition, what they term a “filial correction,” to pope Francis, accusing him of spreading heresy in the church, especially in regards to his allowing communion to remarried divorcees. See here.

There’s a few recent developments to this escalating “crisis”:

• Francis’ allies immediately ridiculed the signatories as being a bunch of ecclesiastical second-stringers, but retired bishop, René Henry Gracida, a friend of pope John Paul II and mother Angelica, has added his name to the document. See here. Additional signatories are adding their names daily. The current number is 146. See here.
• One of Francis’ close supporters, Vatican Secretary of State, cardinal Pietro Parolin, has expressed his desire that the progressive, pro-Francis wing of the church hierarchy should dialogue with the dissenters. See here.
• In response to the attack by church conservatives and traditionalists, Francis’ liberal friends have launched their own website where Catholics can register their support of the pope. See here. Evidently, these folks are not bothered by the fact that Francis has changed a doctrine that had been considered infallible for the last 1000-years.

So, first we had the “Five Dubia” letter sent to Francis by the four conservative cardinals asking him to clarify his lifting of the ban on communion to remarried divorcees, and now we have this petition outright accusing the pope of heresy. Can the pope continue his silence as the dissenters grow in number and boldness?

The average U.S. Catholic who still bothers to attend church on Sunday may not even be aware of this conflict. They mechanically attend the rote rituals and ceremonies oblivious to the crisis. But if a pope can change doctrine previously held to be infallible, then what does that say about Catholicism’s boastings of the infallibility of its magisterium, and what does it say about the entire Catholic system?

Friends, salvation is not in a denomination or an institution. Salvation is in a Person, Jesus Christ. Pray to Him. Repent of your sins and ask Him to save you. Your religious institution is built on sinking sand.

Postscript: I was listening to the “Calling All Catholics” talk radio show (The Station of the Cross, 101.7 FM, Buffalo, NY) on my drive home from work today and for the first fifteen minutes of the program, priest-host Paul McDonald spoke cautiously about the “filial correction” and “Amoris Laetitia.” McDonald avoided directly criticizing the pope, but stated that if the ban on communion to remarried divorcees is lifted, “the whole thing (i.e., the Catholic system) falls apart.”

62 Catholic scholars and clergy send letter to pope Francis accusing him of “propagating heresies”

I’ve been posting updates on the “Amoris Laetitia” crisis just about every Saturday on my Weekend Roundup, but this latest development is too important to postpone.

In April 2016, pope Francis published his “Amoris Laetitia” apostolic exhortation, which touched on marriage and family life. Buried in the document are two now-famous footnotes, #s 329 and 351, which seem to allow communion to remarried divorcees based upon a priest’s discretion. The ban on communion for remarried divorcees was alienating a large percentage of the church’s membership and Francis pragmatically and craftily used “Amoris Laetitia” to dismiss doctrine previously held to be infallible through its ambiguously worded directives. Four conservative cardinals subsequently petitioned Francis, asking him to clarify what appeared to be an abrogation of infallible doctrine. Francis did not respond to the initial petition or its follow-up.

Last night, Catholic news services reported that 62 Catholic scholars and clergy had sent a “Filial Correction” to Francis on August 11th. Because Francis once again had not responded, the letter was made public today (see here). Based on his “Amoris” exhortation, the petition accuses Francis of supporting “heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the Eucharist that are causing a host of ‘heresies and other errors’ to spread throughout the Catholic Church.”

What is a Catholic to do? An “infallible” pope has overturned doctrine held to be “infallible” by previous “infallible” popes. Priests and theologians faithful to Catholic teaching are accusing the current pope of being a heretic, all of this contradicting boasts of the past that a pope could never lead the church into error! Despite counsel to the membership from bishops and priests to “remain calm and trust in the church,” this predicament cannot be ignored.

Catholic friend, rather than trusting in your institutional church with its copious man-made rituals and traditions and clearly fraudulent claims to infallibility, place your trust in the unchangeable Rock, Jesus Christ. Repent of your sins. Ask Jesus Christ to save you by faith alone and then ask the Lord to lead you to an evangelical fellowship in your area that teaches God’s Word without compromise. Your church is in extremely deep crisis. God is exposing your church for what it is. The Lord is calling you out of it and calling you to Him.

62 scholars correct Pope Francis for ‘propagating heresies’
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-62-scholars-correct-pope-francis-for-propagating-heresies

Postcript: “Is the pope Catholic?” was a rhetorical response widely used as an absolute affirmative to a question, but it’s no longer valid.

Welcome to the Weekend Roundup – News & Views – 6/24/17

Some may consider the picture of pope Francis photoshopped into the Godfather to be a bit much, but I thought it was appropriate for the first two stories:

• Vatican considers excommunicating the mafia

For centuries, organized crime was the great benefactor of Catholicism as blood money poured into church coffers. The Mafia and the church once fit together like hand in glove. When pressed, Catholic spokespersons said of Mafia goons and labor union thugs, “We don’t ask them about their business, and they don’t ask us about ours.” Mafia dons were often pious churchmen and their weddings and funerals were officiated by leading prelates. Mafia killers were buried without a second thought in blessed Catholic cemeteries next to pedophile priests, while unbaptized babies, divorced remarrieds, and psychologically-disturbed suicide victims were barred. As the Mafia slides into obscurity, this “consideration” is far too little, way too late.

• Rome show smashes myth Virgin model was Borgia pope’s lover

And while we’re speaking about organized crime, there was the papacy of pope Alexander VI – Rodrigo de Borja – who ruled from 1492 to 1503. The ABSOLUTE corruption of Rome under Borja and the aftermath hastened the rise of Luther and the other 16th-century Reformers through the power of the Holy Spirit.

• A Catholic reads the Bible for the first time

I’m always encouraged when I read stories about Catholics buying Bibles and reading them. Hopefully, they’ll soften their hearts, accept Christ, and come out of religious legalism. But the fact remains that the “one true church” discouraged personal Bible reading and study for centuries. Catholic defenders claim their church gave the world the Bible and yet the church denied it to everyone but their clergy. If you read the Bible with an open heart and the Lord’s enlightenment you’ll understand why that was the case.

• As Church Shifts, a Cardinal Welcomes Gays

If you’ve been following Catholic news reports as I have this month – LGBTQ Pride Month – you’ve witnessed an overwhelming number of stories dealing with the Catholic church’s increasing acceptance of “alternative” lifestyles, not at the Vatican level but at the diocesan and parish levels.

• Can relics unite Catholics and Orthodox? Pope Francis thinks so.

Who would have thought Francis would be able to line up the Lutherans, Charismatics, and Pentecostals a lot more easily than the Eastern Orthodox. But the Patriarchs have long memories. They’re still smarting over the sacking of Constantinople by the infallible pope’s armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Too bad most Protestants have forgotten the past.

• Four cardinals press Pope Francis to clarify divorce-remarriage stand

The four traditionalist cardinals – Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke and Joachim Meisner – are once again demanding that Francis clarify his ambiguous teaching in “Amoris Laetitia” regarding communion for remarrieds. Francis ingeniously, yes, INGENIOUSLY, circumvented previously “infallible” dogma via an obscure footnote in an effort to recover alienated remarrieds who were previously barred from communion. But the defenders of Wojtyla/Ratzinger-style ecclesiastical conservatism aren’t laying down without a fight. Oh, and Catholics are so comforted to know they are guided by an infallible, unified Magisterium?

• Who killed Sister Cathy, and faith in the Catholic Church?

Contemplating the level of corruption inside the Catholic church that enabled a murderous pedophile like father Joseph Maskell to die a free man, this ex-priest has nothing good to say. See my review of “The Keepers” here.

• Luther the Reformer?

I’m actually encouraged by these continuing “pot shots” at Luther from the ultra-traditionalist Catholic website, Church Militant. They don’t get it. Luther would be the first to admit, it wasn’t about him and a religious institution, it was about Jesus Christ and the Good News! of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Few contemporary Catholics relate to this type of pre-Vatican II militancy anymore. Eighty-percent of American Catholics can’t be bothered with attending obligatory mass every Sunday.

• Italian atheists vow to fight pro-crucifix court ruling

Imagine Roman Catholic crucifixes hanging in U.S. public school classrooms? That’s the case in Italy and in at least one other European “Catholic country” that I’m aware of; Poland. I obviously don’t agree with atheists on a lot of things but sponsorship of a particular religion by a tax-supported government institution in a democracy is totally untenable.

• Unforgivable Sin Actually Dancing, Baptist Scholar Claims (satire)

…And finally, for all my fellow Baptists out there, here’s a little fun from the Babylon Bee at our expense.

Graphic designer who helped launch “The Shack” now has deep regrets

 

William P. Young has been successfully propagating his universal reconciliation heresy via his novel, “The Shack,” and the film adaptation. In the article below, graphic designer, Dave Aldrich, speaks about how he participated in the publishing of “The Shack” but now has deep regrets.

---

‘I Have Deep Regrets’: Graphic Artist Who Designed ‘Shack’ Novel Renounces Book
By Heather Clark
ChristianNews.net
April 10, 2017

The graphic artist who helped design the controversial best-selling novel “The Shack” has come forward to express his regret for being a part of the project out of his concern that it contains false doctrine.

“[O]ver 10 years ago, I was captivated by the story and felt honored to be part of the graphic creation of the book. I was so drawn into it, wanting to know the God it portrayed,” Dave Aldrich of Aldrich Design posted to social media on Tuesday. “The Shack’s story wonderfully painted this picture to me of an incredibly knowable and loving God, one full of forgiveness, but without being judgmental.”

To continue reading the article see here.

Billy Graham – Part 2

Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000
By Iain H. Murray
The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000, 342 pages

For part one of this post, please see here.

German higher biblical criticism came to the US in the 19th-century and was a swift-spreading cancer in seminaries and mainline Protestant churches. Believing churchmen drew a line in the sand with a series of 90 essays on the basics of the Christian faith, published between 1910 and 1915, and known as “The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth.” Bible Christians rallied around the cherished doctrinal truths but, as mainline liberalism gained wider support, the fundamentalist movement increasingly adopted a bunker, circle-the-wagons mentality.

Billy Graham began his ministry as a fundamentalist, but he and other evangelicals recognized that fundamentalism took the opposite approach to Jesus’s admonition to be in the world, but not of the world. Graham and friends (Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, Edward Carnell, et al.) reasoned they could more effectively reach souls for Christ by cooperating with mainline liberals and unbelievers rather than by separating from them. But just as fundamentalism had its unhealthy sectarian extremism, Graham’s “New Evangelicalism” had its own pitfall. Cooperation works both ways and Graham’s cooperation with unorthodoxy and unbelief led to accommodation, compromise, and eventually, betrayal of the Gospel. Graham sacrificed right doctrine on the altar of numbers, popularity, and ecclesiastical respectability and set a precedent for generations of pastors and para-church leaders to come.

In “Evangelicalism Divided,” Iain Murray, a former close associate of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, documents the rise and fall of Graham and New Evangelicalism. The larger portion of the book is devoted to circumstances in England, which closely mirrored those in the United States. Swimming against the rising tide, Lloyd-Jones called upon evangelicals to break ties with mainline liberalism and unbelief. In opposition to Lloyd-Jones, England’s New Evangelicals, led by John Stott and J. I Packer, rationalized that believers would be far more effective if they worked within the Anglican church. Not surprisingly, Packer would go on to be one of the charter signers of the ECT – Evangelicals and Catholics Togther – ecumenical accords. As for the current state of Anglicanism, is there even one Bible-believing minister within the entire denomination?

Murray may wander a bit but overall this is an excellent book. There were so many passages I wanted to quote, but where to stop? I would have ended up quoting half the book. For everyone who wonders HOW and WHY Graham and company ended up eventually betraying the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, this book is a sad but necessary eye-opener.

“The reason why the BGEA (Billy Graham Evangelistic Association) decided to co-operate with liberals and other non-evangelicals (such as Roman Catholics – Tom) was never set out in terms of principle. The fact is that the policy was seen as a neccessary expedient designed sincerely for the best end, namely to gain a wider hearing for the gospel. Crusades depended on crowds and in the Graham story there is an almost ever-present concern for maintaining and increasing numbers. ‘Keeping an eye for maximum public impact’ and ‘trying always for the largest possible crowds’ was a settled part of the Billy Graham Association’s strategy.” pp- 58-59.

“We may be small in numbers but since when has the doctrine of the remnant become unpopular among evangelicals? It is one of the most glorious doctrines in the whole Bible. We are not interested in numbers. We are interested in truth and in the living God. ‘If God be for us, who can be against us?’ …If we stand for God’s truth we can be sure that God will honour us and bless us.” – a quote from D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, p.293.

See more reviews of “Evangelicalism Divided” here. My thanks to Pastor Jim for providing the link.

Billy Graham – Part 1

 

Billy Graham is widely honored as the greatest evangelist of the last 100 years. No individual has done more to spread the Gospel of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. The 97-year-old Graham is such an influential and reverenced figure that some Christians go so far as to predict his death will usher in either great spiritual revival or great judgement.

But my experience with Graham was quite different. I left Roman Catholicism and accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior in the early 1980s. What joy to have my sins forgiven and to walk in fellowship with the Lord! I had watched several of Graham’s crusades as a Catholic. Perhaps the televised crusades had softened my heart on my journey to the Lord, but I don’t recall them having made a personal impact. But as a new Christian, I was thrilled to be able to stand with such a famous and revered figure as Billy Graham in declaring the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Many months after accepting Christ, I came across some information that was critical of Graham. I learned that his crusades were planned in cooperation with local Roman Catholic clergy. When Catholics came forward at Graham’s invitation to accept Christ, they were referred to Catholic workers and eventually sent back to Catholic parishes. Catholics were told that coming forward at a Graham crusade was simply a recommitment to their sacramental baptism and confirmation. Catholicism talks about “faith” and “grace” but their bottom line is a gospel of sacramental grace and merit.

I was shocked by Graham’s betrayal of the Gospel. What was he thinking? I had “swam across the Tiber,” AWAY from Rome’s false gospel, to the Gospel of grace through faith only to find evangelicalism’s favorite son encouraging Catholics to remain in error and convincing other evangelicals to embrace Rome as a genuine Christian church. How could this have happened?

I’m currently reading a book titled, “Evangelicalism Divided,” by Iain Murray, a former associate of D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, which offers some explanations for why Graham and other-like minded evangelicals accommodated and compromised with doctrinal error in the pursuit of “results” and popularity and how this eventually led to the betrayal of the Gospel. I’ll be reviewing that book as the second part of this post.

Graham is so highly esteemed by evangelicals that few will tolerate any kind of criticism of him. In our post-modern age of tolerance and niceness, any kind of negative appraisal is widely frowned upon, even if an individual is leading millions into gross doctrinal error. Consequently, I’m not going to expend a great amount of effort writing about Protestantism’s living “saint.” If you’ve hung with me this far, you may want to watch the attached video in which Dr. Graham was interviewed by positivist gospel preacher, Robert Schuller. In the interview, Graham states that people of all religions will be saved; a universalist belief. Since Graham stated that belief in Jesus Christ and the Gospel wasn’t important to salvation, it’s understandable why he had no qualms with Rome’s gospel of sacramental grace and merit.

Brothers and sisters, be careful who you follow. They may not be all they appear to be. If the world esteems them highly, that may be your first clue.

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” – Galatians 1:6-9

“For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” – Luke 16:15